AEC V8

This morning my AEC V8 archive was dusted off, and this is what 30 years of collecting factory issued V8 information looks like…

I would love to scan and post it all on here, but I would still be at it next year.
If anyone wants to see anything specific in detail I will scan it and post it on this thread.

Meanwhile, I think this AEC issued article (published May 1968) is as close as we are going to get to Donald Stokes and his initial thoughts and comments on the V8.
Hopefully it is readable (double-click to enlarge)…

Interesting stuff there , where in Leeds would there have been production .The only place AEC owned was the bus factory at Cross Gates ,Charles H Roe I think was the company name

hi ramone
could the engine blocks have been cast at the west yorkshire foundry in leeds,i remember the blocks for perkins were cast there.
regards
sm1 (from leeds)

ramone:
Interesting stuff there , where in Leeds would there have been production .The only place AEC owned was the bus factory at Cross Gates ,Charles H Roe I think was the company name

Leyland Motors Ltd bought West Yorkshire Foundries Ltd in 1945,which was based at Sayner Lane,Leeds,LS1 1QX,and became part of the Foundry & General Engineering Division of the British Leyland Motor Corporation in 1968.With the gradual decline of British Leyland and the British motor
industry in general West Yorkshire Foundries eventually closed down in September 2003,after having been owned by a German company in the 1990s and then being bought by Norwegian company Norsk-Hydro in 2002…but who closed West Yorkshire Foundries down in 2003! :exclamation: :unamused:

West Yorkshire Foundries made engine castings,gearbox housings,etc,for several famous British motor vehicle manufacturers:AEC,Leyland, Scammell,Daimler,Aston Martin,Jaguar,Rolls-Royce,Bentley,etc.

See Yorkshire Post article:-https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/50-years-in-the-smelting-pot-1-2273711

Photograph:-

Leyland Royal Tiger Motorcoach,Hebble - West Yorkshire Foundries Ltd Advertisement,1952

VALKYRIE

Nice collection of info ERF it stirs the memories, just wish I’d had the forethought to hang onto brochures etc when I was at the AEC dealership, I did gather some from different makers dealerships later when collecting parts during the 80’s, which I suppose is also considered vintage now.

Thanks for the reply Gingerfold most informative, I don’t suppose, if you have access to records of Mammoth Minors sold with customer details etc similar to the Mandator ones you quote, that you could possibly seek out the reg no and more of one Mammoth Minor unit sold to Alfred W Ellis of Newcastle, it may well have been an E or F Reg but I can’t be more sure than that, I would like to be able to put a correct Reg No to the model I built a few years ago of this unit.
Cheers Franky.

Thanks Snowman1 and Valkirie , I never knew that there was a BL owned foundry in Leeds .

ramone:
Thanks Snowman1 and Valkirie , I never knew that there was a BL owned foundry in Leeds .

+1
I had no idea of that either, so thanks.
As Valkirie’s information states they were part of the British Leyland Foundry and General Engineering Division from 1968, presumably the castings produced there would be marked with the Leyland ‘plughole’ roundal ?. I have never seen any castings with the Leyland mark on a V8, only Ley’s - but this weekend I’m going to have a good look!.

ERF:
This morning my AEC V8 archive was dusted off, and this is what 30 years of collecting factory issued V8 information looks like…

3

I would love to scan and post it all on here, but I would still be at it next year.
If anyone wants to see anything specific in detail I will scan it and post it on this thread.

Meanwhile, I think this AEC issued article (published May 1968) is as close as we are going to get to Donald Stokes and his initial thoughts and comments on the V8.
Hopefully it is readable (double-click to enlarge)…

2
1
0

Firstly reading between the lines of that Stokes’ contribution seems to be one of this is what they ( AEC ) have done let’s hope it works.While the implications of him adding along the lines I’m personally not convinced would have been obvious.

As opposed to the obvious inconsistency between Fogg’s and especially Keith Roberts’ ( who we can now conclude was clearly responsible for the design ) comments v CM’s road test conclusions.IE Keith Roberts said ‘’ while the new engine was based on the over square bore stroke principle this was not so extreme as to require high revs in order to achieve a useable power output’'.As opposed to CM’s road test report ‘‘to get the best out of the engine we had to keep the engine speed over 1,800 rpm’’.

It seems ironic that no inconvenient questions along the lines of how can a BMEP of less than the 690 be considered as a ‘breakthrough’,or a 114 mm stroke be considered as supposedly not extreme for a heavy truck engine.Or for that matter how do we explain the glaring difference between Friars’ account of being ‘horrified’ by the instruction to use it v Keith Roberts’ and Fogg’s clear enthusiasm.In addition to the obviously totally opposing solution to the same design requirement ( 300 hp + V8 ) reached by Scania’s designers v AEC’s.Or why do Scammell seem to have reached the conclusion that the Detroit 8v71 met the design premise better than the AEC attempt.On that note even Roberts’ power to weight ratio claim of 8.25lb/hp was beaten by the 8v71’s 7.25 lb/hp with the bonus that the 8v71 actually worked. :unamused:

gingerfold:

Carryfast:
Can you provide the exact point in time that Friars was referring to when the first instruction from the group engineering dept,for the design of ‘a compact 300 hp engine’ was first called for, followed by the drawing board stage leading on from that ?.That all has to be well before 1966 in that case ?.Possibly even before Albert Fogg’s appointment ?.

I can’t give the precise date CF, but development work started in mid-1964. From what I learned it wasn’t even a full time development when it started, but a filling in project when time and resources allowed. Keith Roberts was the engineer in charge of engine development at AEC at that time.

Yes Roberts role in the V8 design seems to be confirmed in ERF’s information regarding the launch.

It would probably be fair to say that the V8 was a joint enterprise between Fogg and Roberts in that case.Which leaves the obvious difference in opinion between Friars ( horrified ? ) and Roberts ( unarguably enthusiastic ) in that regard.Ironically I’d guess that Friars might have agreed with my ideas that the design premise showed a total ignorance of the importance of BMEP and torque in general and the best way to get it,in favour of concentrating on obtaining as much power as possible on the basis of high engine speeds from a too small capacity V8.If so apologies for me blaming Friars.But muddle headed,regarding Fogg and Roberts,who would have been better employed designing F1 car engines than truck engines,stands.On that note I could just imagine them convincing Ford of the benefit in using the Cosworth DFV in the Zodiac Mk4 and the Granada if only Leyland had the sense to have sacked them both well before 1968. :open_mouth: :laughing:

Oh what a surprise, the Green Screamers have resurfaced.

The full paragraph from the CM road test actually reads:

"To get the best out of the V8 we found it necessary to keep the engine speed above 1,800 rpm but on long gradients the engine “hung on” well when allowed to go down to about 1,300 rpm or so."

The tester is talking about perceived rate of progress and also about driving style adapted to the road conditions.

The matching of turbocharger boost at low engine rpm to fuelling, without producing a lot of black was some years hence. When it did arrive, as we know, it required repeated driver education to control the temptation not to use the available revs.

Full Road test report:

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ross-artic

well stupite to talk bout ,but first whit turbo engines and then again whit the speedlimiters you had to get a new style to drive to the hills ,keep it rolling just under limit to a second before climing so not loose the turbopressure ,saved time and fuel not to pess the pedal in bottom hole the time

cav551:
Oh what a surprise, the Green Screamers have resurfaced.

The full paragraph from the CM road test actually reads:

"To get the best out of the V8 we found it necessary to keep the engine speed above 1,800 rpm but on long gradients the engine “hung on” well when allowed to go down to about 1,300 rpm or so."

Full Road test report:

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ross-artic

The 8v71 is a perfectly relevant comparison in this case in showing up Keith Roberts’ ridiculous claims that the AEC V8 was supposedly a new unprecedented design regarding output v size and weight which it wasn’t.As for ‘screamer’ oh wait 800 lb/ft at 1,400 rpm and 318 hp for a piston speed of 1750 feet per minute v the AEC’s comparatively pathetic output at 1,944 feet per minute.There’s only one screamer in that comparison and probably explains why Leyland Group itself in the form of Scammell settled on the 8v71 for its V8 requirements just like the Rolls for its 6 cylinder requirements.Not AEC’s offerings.Anyone would think we are discussing a success in the case of the AEC V8 not one of the ‘‘most miserable failures’’ in the history of the Leyland Group ( not my words ). :unamused:

While ironically Scammell’s decision to turn its back on the use of the AEC V8 with the obvious blessing of Stokes shows where the blame for that debacle really rests.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … what-might

Continuing the miscellaneous jottings.
Firstly, to clarify and add to some of ERF’s comments.

The high datum 2VTG4R models. ERF is quite correct in stating that there were two chassis rail depths, viz 10 inches and 12 inches. The latter being export specification whereby unladen weight was not the same issue as it was in the UK. Here weight saving was always a prime consideration, dictated by the requirements of stringent C&U Regulations and the quantity A Licence rules then applicable in the 1960s. Anyway here are details of the first five high datum cab V8s; for certain all went to UK customers.
2VTG4R 051, 28/03/68, OFJ 472G, customer Cobden.
2VTG4R 054, 18/6/68, LET 472G, customer Wilfred Harrison
2VTG4R 055, 10/7/68, reg. no. not recorded, customer Liquids Powders and Gases (L.P.G)
2VTG4R 056, 12/2/68, reg. no. not recorded, customer L.P.G
2VTG4R 057, 12/7/68, reg. no. PVA 429G, customer Sam Anderson

ERF also mentions VTG4L 001. This was the Commercial Vehicle Show exhibit in 1968.

Continuing the theme of chassis numbers, then the highest chassis number allocated to a customer’s vehicle, and used, was 2VTG4R 433. This was registered VYS 606H, built in December 1969 and bought by the South of Scotland Electricity Board. The latest registrations were “J” plates, built in the last quarter of 1969. VTG4R 407, YTR 227J, Goulden, VTG4R 408, YTR 272J, R.A. Lane, and 2VTGR4R7, LWC 466J, Bank of England (!).

2VTG4R 456 was built in November 1969 for AEC Experimental Department.

There was one oddball chassis number, viz 2VTG4L7 002, which was a 15 ft. 9 inches load carrier chassis that was exported to Blanc and Paiche in Switzerland. Built in January 1970.

Some of the New Zealand V8s were stretched into six-wheeler load carriers.

Approximately 65 chassis numbers within the sequential model series were allocated,but chassis were not built against them. With problems in service with Mandator V8s, AEC experienced customer order cancellations throughout the 23 months of production.

One final Mandator V8 was definitely assembled in 1971 for the proposed re-launch of the lorry in September of that year. This was subsequently cancelled. There was also the 3VTG 6x4 concept tractor unit with American look-alike cab.

AEC Mammoth Major V8 6x4 Tractor Units.
Towards the end of 1968 AEC announced the above models, available in either right or left hand drive. A handful of both versions were built, all with the AVM/801 engine rated at 272 bhp. All had the high datum cab and the identical gearbox options as the Mandator V8 were available. Gross train weights could be 44, 56, or 65 tons. Depending on gross weight various AEC or Leyland Group rear axles could be specified with either 2-spring or 4-spring suspension. VYE 632G was one such 6x4 built. It had the 10-speed semi-automatic gearbox and AEC rear bogie. Somewhat surprisingly it went to BRS.

And, this is the mystery Mammoth Major V8. Given an experimental designation 2VTG6R 4A019 it was completed as late as March 1973. Originally owned by CVS (Morley) Ltd. it is known to have been sold of at some time by British Car Auctions at Brighouse. Since then its whereabouts are unknown.

Other AEC V8 engine applications.
As already mentioned, various industrial uses, all AVM/801 variants in generators, pumps, compressors etc. No marine versions are thought to have been produced. But then again it was believed that no V8s had been used in mobile cranes despite comprehensive sets of drawings being produced for Coles Cranes, who were a very big user of AEC engines. At least one V8 powered Coles Crane did eventually become known, still in service as late as 1998.

The AEC V8 Sabre Coach.
Four, possibly five, AEC V8 Sabre coaches were assembled to a rear engine design. One went to Autocars in Israel (badged as a Leyland), and this had been a 1968 Commercial Motor Show exhibit. A left hand control chassis went to UTIC in Portugal, long-standing users of AECs. Another went to Australia in 1969, and the final Sabre remained in the UK. One Sabre was definitely exhibited at the 1970 Commercial Motor Show, why? No one knows, and it was reportedly dismantled afterwards on the orders of a senior Leyland executive. What is beyond doubt is that one V8 Sabre saw many years of service in the UK. With a cherished registration SAB 784 it carries an ECW luxury body and as far as I know it still exists.

Scammell Crusader V8
At least one Scammell Crusader 6x4 tractor unit was built with AVM/801 engine mated to a 9-speed Fuller gearbox.

Subsequent V8 engine development after suspension of the Mandator V8 in late 1969.
Photographic and documented evidence exists showing that AEC continued some improving and development work on the V8 until mid-1971. As early as January 1969 AEC was conducting test-bed trials on a turbo-charged V8-800 which was achieving 350 bhp at 2,600 rpm. The torque was 824 lb. ft. @ 1,500 rpm. This engine had twin Holset-Schwitzer type 3LD turbo-chargers with an oil cooler located in the pressure circuit of the lubricating system. Of interest because of ERF’s recent posts, the cylinder heads of this test engine were re-designed to allow increased valve lift and Leyland’s design of directed ports.

Purchasers of Mandator V8s still extant in 2018.
Turners (Soham) Ltd.
Air Products (transport now contracted out)
Sinclair’s of Evesham
Sam Anderson
Benton Bros.
James Lynch
J. W. Cousins
McBurney’s
Texaco (transport now contracted out)
East Riding Sacks
Hargreaves
Ferrymasters
Total Oil (transport now contracted out)
Westfield

Operators of Mandator V8s who had more than ten of them.
Air Products, 21
R.T.I.T.B. 17, the three seat, walk through cab was the reason
British Gypsum, Kirkby Thore, 13
Hipwood & Grundy, 12

Great posts gingerfold!
Many thanks!.

You’ve missed the original owners of my V8 from your list - they are still very much in business!.

In your research have you found any information on a military application for the AV801 engine?
I haven’t, but I have bought quite a few V8 spares, including a brand new AV801 injection pump from military surplus retailers, and all had NSN numbers allocated to them, indicating that they had military application of some sort.

A good diagram of the engine here and seen fitted to the Sabre Bus chassis. Franky.

An early video of LVL164H in action:

youtube.com/watch?v=gmRl4nhEOHE&t=3s

That wasn’t the soundtrack I was expecting, unlike any V8 I’ve heard before, especially the high revving ones like the ■■■■■■■ or Perkins. I’m saying nothing about the gear changing except to say that the engine rpms seemed to drop a lot faster than the driver anticipated, to me that suggests a 9, 10 or 12spd box would have suited it much better.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

newmercman:
That wasn’t the soundtrack I was expecting, unlike any V8 I’ve heard before, especially the high revving ones like the ■■■■■■■ or Perkins. I’m saying nothing about the gear changing except to say that the engine rpms seemed to drop a lot faster than the driver anticipated, to me that suggests a 9, 10 or 12spd box would have suited it much better.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

:slight_smile: This was LVL before any work was done - other than it was actually bought by Steve and Johnny as a non runner, and obviously that had been cured.

Nobody that drove LVL, and my knowledge of it started in 1990, could complete a drive with all smooth gear changes. The consensus was that the slip coupling on the gearchange rod needed slight adjustment, these gearboxes are very sensitive to even tiny adjustments of the coupling, but before it was done, LVL was fully stripped and restored - with a Fuller 9 speed fitted, as Steve totally agrees with you that these engines are much better suited to them.

Hi Boys
Great posts from all
gingerfold my father Peter Millington from Whitchurch Shropshire brought a new V8 Mandator from Lex Tilotsons in Trafford Park in 1969, I know it was fitted with a 6 speed box but have you got any other info on it.
Thanks in advance
Regard Keith